Topic: Most impressive military achievement in the 20th Century?

Ashes · May 24th, 2005

Doppleganger wrote...............

__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________
It has to be the German victories of 1939-42. Note I say German because it would be unfair to Germany to give any of the other Axis partners joint credit.

Why?

Well because it changed the face of warfare forever. Now, for the first time since the Mongol armies thundered across the plains of Asia 800 years ago we had an army that began to move faster than the speed of the marching man. Anyone who's ever read 'Panzer Leader' by Heinz Guderian will realise what a struggle it was for the German Panzer arm to get started. Without Hitler's favour and Guderian's brilliance and perseverance against the odds the Germans would have lost the initial Battle of France and a new dawn of trench warfare would have set in. But it didn't. Instead, Germany's armies with Panzers at their spearheads crushed every army in their path in the first three years of war. The great Allied victories in Europe took their cue from those first three years and all modern armies today take their cue from Blitzkrieg.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________

Just a few observations........

You mention the Mongols....
There was perhaps one key difference between the success of the Mongols and the eventual falure of the Blitzkrieg tactics of the Whermacht, the Mongols under Genghis Khan always had superb logistics, the Whermacht didn't, and that was one of the main reasons the Mongols were so successful over such an immense area, and the Germans [ in Russia ] weren't, and therefore lost the war.

The problem was that Germany lacked the resources, technology and expertise to gamble on the creation of an all mechanized, or motorised, force when rearming in the 30's, so the Panzers were backed up and supplied mainly by a large slow moving army, just like armies had for centuries. The vast majority of German military transport was horse drawn. Each regiment had 683 horses [ a total of over 600,000 horses in the initial attack ] as opposed to just 73 motor vehicles [ They used over 3 million horses during the course of the war. ]

While the fast moving Panzer armies could create havoc with slower moving Russian armies in the field, the bulk of the German armies were advancing at walking speed, and were often left a long way behind, [ along with much needed fuel and supplies ] thus leaving the Panzers vulnerable to counter attack, and eventually, [ and very importantly ] the Germans lost control of the air, making Panzer operations difficult.
The Germans military planning for Barbarossa has been described as 'logistical imbecility'.

The Germans eventually failed, after a relatively short four years, to achieve their ultimate goal [ with their new tactics ] which was to conquer Russia, and therefore control Europe.

And as you say the Mongols covered a much larger area and lasted centuries.

And I'm not as sure as you, that a "new dawn of trench warfare would have set in.''

General Erich von Ludendorff and his staff developed the concepts from which modern war would evolve and defeat trench warfare in 1918.

His new offensive doctrine of 'attack in depth', which reintroduced new attacking manoeuvre's on the battlefield, with highly trained stormtroopers. In the last German offensive of the war they broke the trench warfare stalemate, and came close to success.

Plus, the advances in tank development, and more importantly, air power, meant that first world war type trench warfare was possibly a thing of the past [ despite the French wasting valuable manpower in the defuct Maginot line ].

There were many men of vision like Guderian, struggling for Blitzkrieg type tactics, in all the leading countries in the late 20's early 30's, such as General Paul Andre Mais, and Colonel Doumemc and De Gaulle of France, advocating combined tank operations, and Red Army General and theorist Mikhail Tukhachevsky.

Tukhachevsky held very advanced ideas on military strategy, particularly on the use of tanks and aircraft. His ideas were opposed by Stalin's military cronies from the Civil War, Voroshilov and Budenny, and he was eventually executed in the army purges of '37.

The German commanders like Guderian and Manteuffell, put into practice the tank tactics and theories that the British were experimenting with in the late 1920's, and the writings of the foremost theorist on combined tank tactics, Captain Basil Liddel Hart, and others like General Fuller, and General Hobart.

[ Guderian, in a tribute to Hart before the war, sent an inscribed photo of himself with the words ... To captain Liddel Hart, from one of his disciples in tank warfare and the creator of modern tank strategy. ]...

But they, and many others, were all butting their heads against the brick walls of conservative army high commands, until unfortunately [for Europe ] Hitler, the only leader willing to take the risk, gave the green light for combined tank operations soon after coming to power, giving the Germans the chance for early victories. It was very successful [at first] on the relatively short Western front, and initially in Russia, but in the long run, had fatal flaws, which eventually led to it's failure.

May 24th, 2005
Ashes Immunes	Doppleganger wrote............... __________________________________________________ ____________________________________________ It has to be the German victories of 1939-42. Note I say German because it would be unfair to Germany to give any of the other Axis partners joint credit. Why? Well because it changed the face of warfare forever. Now, for the first time since the Mongol armies thundered across the plains of Asia 800 years ago we had an army that began to move faster than the speed of the marching man. Anyone who's ever read 'Panzer Leader' by Heinz Guderian will realise what a struggle it was for the German Panzer arm to get started. Without Hitler's favour and Guderian's brilliance and perseverance against the odds the Germans would have lost the initial Battle of France and a new dawn of trench warfare would have set in. But it didn't. Instead, Germany's armies with Panzers at their spearheads crushed every army in their path in the first three years of war. The great Allied victories in Europe took their cue from those first three years and all modern armies today take their cue from Blitzkrieg. __________________________________________________ ______________________________________________ Just a few observations........ You mention the Mongols.... There was perhaps one key difference between the success of the Mongols and the eventual falure of the Blitzkrieg tactics of the Whermacht, the Mongols under Genghis Khan always had superb logistics, the Whermacht didn't, and that was one of the main reasons the Mongols were so successful over such an immense area, and the Germans [ in Russia ] weren't, and therefore lost the war. The problem was that Germany lacked the resources, technology and expertise to gamble on the creation of an all mechanized, or motorised, force when rearming in the 30's, so the Panzers were backed up and supplied mainly by a large slow moving army, just like armies had for centuries. The vast majority of German military transport was horse drawn. Each regiment had 683 horses [ a total of over 600,000 horses in the initial attack ] as opposed to just 73 motor vehicles [ They used over 3 million horses during the course of the war. ] While the fast moving Panzer armies could create havoc with slower moving Russian armies in the field, the bulk of the German armies were advancing at walking speed, and were often left a long way behind, [ along with much needed fuel and supplies ] thus leaving the Panzers vulnerable to counter attack, and eventually, [ and very importantly ] the Germans lost control of the air, making Panzer operations difficult. The Germans military planning for Barbarossa has been described as 'logistical imbecility'. The Germans eventually failed, after a relatively short four years, to achieve their ultimate goal [ with their new tactics ] which was to conquer Russia, and therefore control Europe. And as you say the Mongols covered a much larger area and lasted centuries. And I'm not as sure as you, that a "new dawn of trench warfare would have set in.'' General Erich von Ludendorff and his staff developed the concepts from which modern war would evolve and defeat trench warfare in 1918. His new offensive doctrine of 'attack in depth', which reintroduced new attacking manoeuvre's on the battlefield, with highly trained stormtroopers. In the last German offensive of the war they broke the trench warfare stalemate, and came close to success. Plus, the advances in tank development, and more importantly, air power, meant that first world war type trench warfare was possibly a thing of the past [ despite the French wasting valuable manpower in the defuct Maginot line ]. There were many men of vision like Guderian, struggling for Blitzkrieg type tactics, in all the leading countries in the late 20's early 30's, such as General Paul Andre Mais, and Colonel Doumemc and De Gaulle of France, advocating combined tank operations, and Red Army General and theorist Mikhail Tukhachevsky. Tukhachevsky held very advanced ideas on military strategy, particularly on the use of tanks and aircraft. His ideas were opposed by Stalin's military cronies from the Civil War, Voroshilov and Budenny, and he was eventually executed in the army purges of '37. The German commanders like Guderian and Manteuffell, put into practice the tank tactics and theories that the British were experimenting with in the late 1920's, and the writings of the foremost theorist on combined tank tactics, Captain Basil Liddel Hart, and others like General Fuller, and General Hobart. [ Guderian, in a tribute to Hart before the war, sent an inscribed photo of himself with the words ... To captain Liddel Hart, from one of his disciples in tank warfare and the creator of modern tank strategy. ]... But they, and many others, were all butting their heads against the brick walls of conservative army high commands, until unfortunately [for Europe ] Hitler, the only leader willing to take the risk, gave the green light for combined tank operations soon after coming to power, giving the Germans the chance for early victories. It was very successful [at first] on the relatively short Western front, and initially in Russia, but in the long run, had fatal flaws, which eventually led to it's failure.